Removing reliance on MSTS default route data.

[mestevet]

I really don't want to keep this thread off on this tangent, the OR Team has stated their position.

But, hasn't MS sold the distribution rights to Atari and then others a long time ago? Would they even see anything from sales of additional copies? My wife had dealt a bit with "intellectual property" law (where copyrights and such thing fall), and the way it's been explained to me, MS COULD retain the copyright to the created content, but essentially license someone else to sell and distribute it (obviously for a payment). So they could still be the copyright holder, but someone else (like Atari or other party) has the right to copy and distribute it for profit. I think that's why this gets pretty complicated. Does anyone even know who currently owns the distribution rights? Someone mentioned that they were still able to obtain new copies in Europe (apparently "legal") - do we know what company was distributing them?

This is precisely why I have been advocating anyone with a little bit of modeling experience (for instance, I know there is other content than models and textures) to create a replacement of the original default content that doesn't rely in any way on the original (shape, texture, etc.). Just stay clear of the "who owns it now" morass.

Steve

[lindsayts]

I really don't want to keep this thread off on this tangent, the OR Team has stated their position.

But, hasn't MS sold the distribution rights to Atari and then others a long time ago? Would they even see anything from sales of additional copies? My wife had dealt a bit with "intellectual property" law (where copyrights and such thing fall), and the way it's been explained to me, MS COULD retain the copyright to the created content, but essentially license someone else to sell and distribute it (obviously for a payment). So they could still be the copyright holder, but someone else (like Atari or other party) has the right to copy and distribute it for profit. I think that's why this gets pretty complicated. Does anyone even know who currently owns the distribution rights? Someone mentioned that they were still able to obtain new copies in Europe (apparently "legal") - do we know what company was distributing them?

Steve

http://teamalco.com.au/TA_MSTS.html in Australia is selling copies of MSTS. they did say (I think) where they were getting them from. Team alco is a group of 4 or 5 Australian developers that have got together to produce both freeware and payware content and they would NOT be doing anything that would be running fowl of anyones IP rights.

Lindsay

[OTTODAD]

Someone mentioned that they were still able to obtain new copies in Europe (apparently "legal") - do we know what company was distributing them?

http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/857807/Microsoft_Train_Simulator/Product.html

O t t o

[3Directions]

We haven't settled on a shape format yet, but we are aware of issues of who supports what and cost of tools. To that end, there's a high chance we'll support COLLADA, which already has widespread support in tools (including SketchUp and Blender), either directly in OR or via a provided converter.

If Collada , would OpenCollada fit with " or via a provided converter " for Maya and 3DS Max aswell as SketchUp and Blender

.

[muskokaandtahoe]

FWIW, just to keep thread drift down a bit... the issue at hand is all about distribution, not usage. If you have MSTS content, you're set as far as running any routes that use MSTS content in Open Rails. The problem is for those folks who, for whatever reason, don't have MSTS. How do they run routes in Open Rails that use MSTS content? No one is licensed to send them copies of MS content. That leaves three possible answers:

(1) They don't.
(2) They find MSTS somewhere and buy it.
(3) They rely upon the generosity of the Train Siming Community to produce equivalent freeware shapes and they use those.

[GoGoran]

In Germany, MSTS is currently copied and distributed by UBISOFT as part of their "Software Pyramide" line of older games, and you can buy it everywhere in stores for 9,--, new and fresh from the factory !

Used copies in good condition sell at amazon for 3,-- upwards !

http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B000GLKPG2/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=471061493&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00007162S&pf_rd_m=A3JWKAKR8XB7XF&pf_rd_r=1Y5E1XY1P19TJ5WNG62W

Yiou can also order from the US or Canada, payment via credit card, shipping costs for a single item is 14,-- !

[twpol]

If Collada , would OpenCollada fit with " or via a provided converter " for Maya and 3DS Max aswell as SketchUp and Blender

OpenCollada, along with ColladaMaya and ColladaMax, provide COLLADA support within Maya and 3ds Max; the provided converter I am talking about simply converts COLLADA to OR's shape format. Together, you would be able to use Maya and 3ds Max, but OR would not be involved in making Maya or 3ds Max or any other tool support COLLADA.

[3Directions]

OpenCollada, along with ColladaMaya and ColladaMax, provide COLLADA support within Maya and 3ds Max; the provided converter I am talking about simply converts COLLADA to OR's shape format. Together, you would be able to use Maya and 3ds Max, but OR would not be involved in making Maya or 3ds Max or any other tool support COLLADA.

Thank you for the reply and clarification .

Best Regards

[csantucci]

I'm wondering if it is worth the work to remake all basic MSTS contents so as to run any MSTS-based contents on OR without needing MSTS original objects/files. I think almost all of us have a legal MSTS licence, and if someone does not have it, he can buy it for few money.
Of course from a conceptual point of view it would be elegant if OR wouldn't need MSTS original objects/files to reach that goal, but from a practical point does it provide a real advantage?
Also asking MS to free or to transfer its copyright for MSTS in my opinion is not very useful, if you can buy a MSTS copy for 9 Euro.
Let's the OR team focus on developing the simulator (I'm happy that's their view of the issue), while contents developers could focus on new contents.
That's only my 2 cents of course.

Carlo

[hminky]

Has anyone seen the prices of MSTS on Amazon and E-Bay. They are listed at $99 new and $70 used on Amazon and E-bay is about $85.

I bought mine for $5 on Amazon a year and a half ago. Maybe Open Rails created a demand.

Sorta like modding did for MVP baseball 2005 and Nascar 2004.

I love running Andre Ming's Ozark Northern on Open Rails.

Harold

[rpicardi1]

FWIW, just to keep thread drift down a bit... the issue at hand is all about distribution, not usage. If you have MSTS content, you're set as far as running any routes that use MSTS content in Open Rails. The problem is for those folks who, for whatever reason, don't have MSTS. How do they run routes in Open Rails that use MSTS content? No one is licensed to send them copies of MS content. That leaves three possible answers:

(1) They don't.
(2) They find MSTS somewhere and buy it.
(3) They rely upon the generosity of the Train Siming Community to produce equivalent freeware shapes and they use those.

One of our beta testers is working on an application that would make substitutions of shapes in a route's World files. With a compiled list of default - replacement shapes, this app could solve the problem of OR users that do not have MSTS of using routes that contain default MSTS content. There is a upload in the forum library that has pictures of all the default shapes including the hidden ones.

Subbed routes could then be safely made available to OR users that do not have MSTS.

[Erick_Cantu]

On the subject of default content replacement: Good idea. I've been working on a similar concept for a couple of years now between other projects. I use the crossbucks I uploaded to the library, for example, as a direct replacement for the default US2 crossbucks.

I have not much to offer, but the ORTS team, of course, has the necessary permission to use any of my content that could (or does) replace default content, and I will continue to work on such replacements as I have time. I am willing to coordinate with other model builders to this end, between other projects, of course.

On the subject of model formats: I would imagine it would be difficult to find a format that TSM could handle, but perhaps a converter utility could be made whereby you'd load a shape file and apply the necessary material modifications for advanced shaders and animations there. There could be issues with people modifying models without the permissions required to do it, so perhaps such a utility could be created to read source files only.

This might not be terribly feasible.

I think another subject that should be addressed is the system used to store and retrieve the data required to make content in the sim (obviously, this would apply only to native ORTS content). In FS we called it the 'aircraft container system,' so I tend to just call it a 'content container system.' The reason I bring this up is that, so far, the systems developed for rail simulators are rather overcomplex, inflexible, and limited. Perhaps this is best suited to another thread entirely, but I have long held that prospective developers of simulators should study the aircraft container system in MSFS, as it is the golden standard of efficiency, simplicity, and flexibility. There is no need to script moving parts. You provide XML code in a file that the modules which convert DirectX .x files to FS .mdl files reads. The modules then hard-code the necessary information (such as a gauge that displays exhaust gas temperature) into the model. You can do basically anything with this XML coding. The necessary configuration files that tell the sim what physics to use (and define basic physics parameters), what textures to use, what sounds to use, and so on, are simple text files in .cfg format. There is no need to create XML files that you have to convert into a gibberish proprietary format (such as proxybin). Just open it in a text editor. Aliasing takes five seconds. The internal and external sounds are defined in one configuration file, whether you use mono or stereo or 11025Hz or 44100Hz doesn't matter, because every sound will play per its defined rate and volume parameters which are defined with decimal percentages, not frequency curves. You can have one model use several texture sets via a switch in the main aircraft configuration file which defines variations and what model, sounds, panel, and textures they use, defining these is as simple as typing the folder name in the relevant section. If you have a texture folder with no suffix, it's the default texture folder for this model, and leaving the "texture=" line blank will read this. If you have a folder named "texture.1", the line reads "texture=1". It works the same way for sounds, models, and panels.

Aliasing sounds and panels is by far the easiest of any simulation platform I have ever used. If you have aircraft X, and want to use the sounds from aircraft Y, the sound.cfg in Aircraft X's sound folder would read as follows:

[Fltsim]
alias=Aircraft Y\sound\

It doesn't get more efficient and flexible than that. A similar system in a future rail sim would be outstanding and could decrease the amount of time it takes to learn to make content for the sim, making it more attractive for prospective model builders, as well as much easier for novices to alias sounds, cabs, textures, and whatnot.

[mestevet]

Personally, I'd be willing to leave TSM in the dust, for a better model format. It's more intertia on my part than anything else at this point... 3DCanvas seems like a reasonable alternative to me, since it's possible to import TSM model files. The others that were mentioned, I know less about, but doubt they'd support importing the ancient TSM model files. That's why I was guessing that a converter code of some sort would have to be written for something like 3DCanvas. I'd suppose it would be better if a converter already existed that supported at least some similar model formats.

Sometimes I wish I'd gotten more into programming when I was back in school. My programming knowledge stopped at FORTRAN, so I know just enough to make myself sound stupid with all these object oriented programming languages out there...

Steve

[longiron]

Steve,
I have had the same thought, but leaving behind all those models, parts, etc is almost too awful to consider. I'd be willing to move even if I lost all the texture mapping. There might be a way to go from source TSM files to something 3DCanvas can read, but we will have to see what the future holds.

[mestevet]

Well, 3DCanvas, I've been told, IS supposed to open TSM source files (I asked the good folks at Amabilis about this directly). Now, I haven't done it, and I haven't spoken directly with someone who has, but, well, there it is. I don't know if texture mapping is preserved or not (with some of my models, I really would cry if I had to re-map them).

I have the free trial version of 3DCanvas, have sat down with it a couple of times. I just need to break down and buy the full version and play with it. My birthday IS coming up...

Steve